list_charts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read-only operation. The description adds the workbook/worksheet scope but offers no detail on return format, behavior for missing sheets, or whether charts are returned with metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly worded sentence of eight words. Every word contributes to purpose and scope; no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with two params and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: no return value description, no guidance on optional sheet_name, and no differentiation from sibling tools. It does what is needed for basic selection but not more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints at the two-level scope via 'workbook or worksheet,' which partially maps to filepath and sheet_name, but it doesn't explicitly explain that sheet_name is optional or how null behaves. Some added meaning, but not robust.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('embedded charts'), and specifies scope ('in a workbook or worksheet'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_tables or list_named_ranges. It precisely states what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer list_charts over list_tables or other listing tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.